Does no threshold for the rate of any cause of death justify improving safety?
PeepinGoodArgs
joined 1 year ago
Well, nothing is 100% safe, and we allow plenty of things that are demonstrably unsafe to continue. So if you compare bike-car collisions against say, firearm suicides in the US, you'll see that bike-car collisions aren't that bad.
The fundamental argument is that nothing is totally safe, but some things are safer than others.
More like if you contextualize the incidents of bicycles and pedestrians with cars, you might realize they're safer than you think. This is absolutely false for cars and pedestrians though in America at least.
What’s particularly strange about it is that it doesn’t really serve any purpose for a vast majority of people aside from a government-approved official statement that someone finds their in-laws unbearable.
That's a pretty good purpose. Everybody can save face by taking part in bureaucracy. That sounds like I'm being facetious, but I'm serious. Think about the alternative: avoiding them awkwardly all the time or telling them to screw themselves directly, which will engender negative feelings. At least with the bureaucracy, the sentiment gets filtered through a impartial, uncaring medium.
Anecdotally, this was my experience as a student when I tried to use AI to summarize and outline textbook content. The result says almost always incomplete such that I'd have to have already read the chapter to include what the model missed.
I will be in a perfect position to snatch a discount H100 in 12 months
I've had this! Idk why they'd call it the exploding head syndrome, but it sounded like a door shutting really loudly
...god damn it...
I actually like the new Notepad
At the level of the Pulitzer prize finalists, I think the use of AI is completely warranted and should be encouraged. To get anywhere near that level in the first place, you need to do be able to craft good writing on your own. That they use AI to help that process doesn't bother me one bit.
view more: next ›
Well, you asked if I was arguing against improving safety when compared to fatality rates for any activity.
But for me to have made that argument, I'd have to have said that there is no rate of fatality that would justify improving safety. So, I was asking if you think that's true:
But I sucked at wording it clearly. That's on me.
In short, no, I'm not arguing that. Really, I was just clarifying what the person you responded to was saying. I'm not making an argument either way.